[Rupert Avery]

sorry one more thing just about space and all that. It is well known now that when Reagan wanted to do the whole "Star Wars" project,he got a heap of SiFi writers to make this up and make it sound real and possible,sorry I can only remember one guys name and its Larry Niven author of Known Sace.But the author of 2001, Arthur C Clarke was also invited to do this but when he found out what it was He told them he would have no part in it and left.
The reason for this was because it was in the time of the cold war and the soviet union was keeping up with the Americans and some one had to get a bigger advantage to win. So when Reagan told the world about a super space age weapon that could defend all of America from space he knew that the Soviet union could never afford to do the same and thus gave the Americans a huge if not real advantage in winning the cold war.

Yet it is said that this is all a lie and infact it is up there waiting to be used.....

[This message has been edited by Rupert Avery (edited January 22, 2001).]

[FitzChivalry]

Well, of course evolution is just a theory, no theory is 100% sure.
But you must inspect the evidence and see which theory is more probable and i think evolution is more probable than creation.
It's certainly more probable than the big bang theory and other cosmic physical theories that some people blindly believe in.

[Metosblat]

Actually the big bang theory has alot more testable evidence than the theory of evolution. Einstein was so upset when he thought he'd prove that the universe started at a singularity that he spent the rest of his life trying to prove his theory wrong.

[Thoughtcriminal84]

uh, no. Einstein wasn't upset at all by that. Or if he was, he never tried to disprove his own theory because of it.
Why would he? He got it all right, so he tries to disprove it all because he doesn't like what some of the calculations indicate?

Where did you get that from? Things like this you can reference, you know.

I believe you are talking about his very real distain for quantum mechanics. He didn't exactly try and disprove QM, but he sure didn't like some of the things it said about reality, hence the famous
God does not play dice

The sheer number of myths about what Einstein said or did is astounding. I've heard dozens of them over the net, but they never give any references. It's always anecdotal. Except for JFK and elvis, Einstein has more urban legends than anyone.

[FitzChivalry]

For the big bang there are many findings that don't settle in right with the theory. Observations showed parts of the universe that seem to be moving not in the right direction or speed, the density of the universe seems to be 5 times less than the density needed for the big bang to happen according to the theory and there are stars that seem to be older than the universe which is impossible.

That's some of the problems in the big bang theory that i remembered right now, i'm not saying that the big bang didn't happen, it is more probable than any other theory, but there are more problems with it than with evolution.

[Ntschotschi]

Do you really think evolution or big bang are conspiracy theories?
They are scientific hypothesis which have to be fallible by definition. They are just used in day to day science because they are useful to explain things. Whenever a new theory will explain any given phenomenons better they will be dropped.
A lot of "scientific" events can be equally well explained with a mythological set of beliefs. It's only our "belief" in science which makes us feel superior to such mythological explanations.
But there is and never will be a final theory. Don't you think that in a few hundred years time from now people will be amused about our "theories"? Much the same like we nowadays smile patronizingly at the idea that earth should be a disc?

[Eventine]

Sorry FitzChivlary, but the current mass of the universe has nothing to do with how much is needed for the big bang to happen. There is currently not enough detectable mass for it to revert in a big crunch however. i suggest you all read A Brief History Of Time by Stephen Hawking, I have just finished it and it has answered a lot of questions I previously had. It dispelled a lot of myths as well.

[Metosblat]

My teachers at school told me (they were probably lying, typical) that little einstein myth thing. They said that he was so upset that he thought he'd proven that god didn't exist that he wanted to put his mind at ease before he died.
Here's another thing I learnt from my Physics teacher: Isaac Newton died a virgin.
great physics class eh.

[Thoughtcriminal84]

the thing about Newton is probably true. Read a book called "Mathematical Conspiracies" for more on that one...Newton, from all accounts, was a real asshole, and there is real evidence that he was gay. Nothing wrong with that, you understand, but being that he was alive in the late 1600's England it makes since that he would be so damn bitter and evil towards people.

Reading his books and things by people who knew him, I've come to the conclusion that Einstein never believed in God. Not defending or attacking his position on that, just stating what I think is true. He used God as a convieniant metaphor for physics, though, the same as many other physicists.

Here recently interesting developments have been taking place in cosmology. I'll be watching it unfold month after month...it really is fascinating to behold. I haven't decided anything on that stuff...

[Giarc]

Hi,
Well thoughtcriminal I too have something of an interest in biology and the creation evolution debate. Suffice it to say that science works by falsifiability and not by 'weight of evidence'. Let me demonstrate. For centuries biologists 'knew' that all swans were white. They could go out and see millions of white swans wherever they went. The obvious truth of the evidence led to this becoming established fact. Then some bright spark discovered Australia and New Zealand and overturned this 'fact' upon observing one black swan. In fact, there are thousands of black swans. In summary, a theory cannot be held to be true if one piece of evidence contradicts it. Does this mean the theory can't be revised to accomodate the new evidence? Of course not. But weight of evidence isn't accepted scientific method in any science except evolutionary biology. I have heard many physics lecturers assign evolutionary biology the same status as astrology (ie pseudoscience) for that reason (even though they believe we did evolve).

Now I'll state outright that I think evolutionists are as guilty of believing by faith that we evolved, as creationists believe by faith that we were created. My reasons are spelled out in a book called 'Not Proven' by a philosopher named Rolf Gruner. He doesn't actually mention creation except for comparisons of the logic employed by both sides of the debate.

I'm not out to convince anyone of anything....I personally think that this forum is not a suitable place for a debate on this topic. I really do reccommend that you read that book thoughtcrim....it might surprise you. I too have debated with professors of biology on the topic and it was not I that walked away because I couldn't answer him. In my experience evolutionary biologists tend to become too narrow in their approach to this debate and don't understand that tautological arguments don't prove a point. *shrug*

Besides which, was someone suggesting that evolution is a conspiracy? http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif If so, I've heard some urban myths about geologists in australia not getting to publish because their results directly contradict the theory of evolution. Perhaps there is a conspiracy of evolutionist editors ? http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif
*grin* Please don't razz me on that....I did say urban myth http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif
Cheers,
G.